User talk:Zulu DFA
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Cerberus page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 16:56, May 24, 2010 Site Policies Please take a few moments to review site policies, which can be found by following the Community Guidelines and Style Guide links provided in the welcome message above. The majority of your edits have been outstanding, particularly the revamping of the Cerberus page. That said, there do appear to be a few issues that need ironed out. Please note that the possibility of a connection based upon assumptions and a shared name (we don't even know if Warren is Dr. Warren's first or last name) do not qualify something as trivia. We need something more to go on. In addition, please note that edit warring (defined in accordance with Wikipedia's 3-revert rule) can result in a ban. We are nearly in edit war territory on the Dr. Warren page. If you really think the item needs to be added, bring it up for discussion on the talk page. Again, I really do appreciate what you're doing, as most of your edits have been nothing but productive, but a quick review of site policies may prove beneficial. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, SpartHawg948 09:43, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :Despite my prior message, we are now officially in edit war territory. Please refrain from further violations of site policy, or additional measures may have to be taken, up to and including a ban. SpartHawg948 10:00, January 14, 2011 (UTC) Admiral Kahoku and Cerberus The entire mention of Admiral Kahoku's investigation of Cerberus is a spoiler for Mass Effect. You don't learn of the investigation until partway through the mission chain Kahoku gives you. Initially, it's just a mission to look for some missing marines, remember? Seriously though, we're back into edit war territory again. I feel compelled to remind you of site policy, and to caution you that this is the second time you have been warned about this in less than 24 hours. Please refrain from further edit warring. There will not be a third warning. SpartHawg948 20:07, January 14, 2011 (UTC) All right, all right, I thought you said my "Cerberus" edits were fine the last time. Now they are not. So yeah... :And at the time, I thought they looked okay. However, two other editors have pointed out problems with them, and I do tend to agree, now that I've taken a closer look. But we're getting off topic. What I did or didn't say earlier in no way takes away from your behavior toward those two other users. Instead of listening to their concerns, or bringing it up on the talk page, you simply reverted their edits every time. And I know we've been over why that is not allowed. So please, don't try to use a comment I made previously to justify your repeated edit warring, especially since in that same comment, I explicitly told you what to do and not to do. But I guess you only payed attention to part of my comment. SpartHawg948 20:25, January 14, 2011 (UTC) Budget vs Funding This is the definition of budget. Does this match what is described in the section you renamed from "Funding" to "Budget"? No. On the other hand, the definition of funding matches perfectly. Funny, isn't it? Now you are just being petty and juvenile, and it needs to stop NOW. SpartHawg948 21:36, January 14, 2011 (UTC) :Funny, how under the entry "Funding" you've so courteously provided the definition is actually given to the word "fund". And the meaning of the derivative word "funding" has more to do with spending and allocating "funds", rather than with gathering income, which seems to be covered in the subsection now in question. And the word "budget" perfectly matches both Cerberus' income and spending. Other than that, the two words are practically synonyms. So I was not being more juvenile or petty, than the other guy who sited "alphabetizing" as a reason to arrange subsections his way. And by the way, what about the essense of the reason for my original edit - putting "the egg" first?Zulu DFA 21:56, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ::Look at the link. The entirety of it. When you type in "Funding", it takes you to "Fund". Odd. Maybe instead of accusing me of some sort of nonsense, you could actually read what is provided. To make it easier for you, here's another definition of funding. It fits much better than does "budget", which means the allocation of funds which are already on hand for use by a project or projects. Now, given that the section you renamed concerned how Cerberus acquires its money, not how it spends it, which is more accurate, a word defined as the spending of resources, or a word defined as acquiring resources which will then be used to finance various projects? ::Now, you can go accusing Commdor of being petty and juvenile all you want, but I can safely say he has never had to be warned twice within twenty-four hours to follow site policies or face a ban. And before you go harping on him for wanting to arrange subsections "his way", remember that this is exactly what you were trying to do yourself! You can keep pushing this issue if you want, though I wouldn't recommend it. But hey, you do what you've got to do. ::As to the bit you just added, which caused an edit conflict, I completely agree with Commdor. The funding described in the section in question didn't come about until Cerberus was up and running. If the section described the start-up money, such as the hypothetical injection of TIM's own cash that you described, you'd have a case. But it doesn't, so you really don't. Additionally, Commdor's method (alphabetical sorting) has the added benefit of being completely objective, at least until someone changes the alphabet itself. I'll take organization along objective standards over subjective organization based on perceived priority of the topics any day of the week. SpartHawg948 22:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ::: Actually, it's exactly the opposite, as is very clear to be seen @ the links you provide yourself. Herewe have "estimated income and expence", while herewe have allocating resources coming from "internal reserves", as opposed to "external or borrowed money". ::: So now you just automatically discriminate against me, without even bothering to look into the actual reasons both sides provide. Don't get me wrong, it's not like it ruins my life or something. I support police brutality any day myself. Yet it doesn't cease to be police brutality. In my opinion, of course. :::Now you are saying you agree with Commdor, but you go farhter than him. He just said there was no telling which was first, "egg" or "chicken", while you are now assorting that the "chicken" is first. But at any given point of time, each "chicken" is just a derivative of its own "egg", so I do have the case even if the section doesn't deal with the very first "egg" and very first "chicken". As to the super-no-doubt-objective alphabetical order, I believe it's been covered by me providing a better subtitle for the section, as you refuse to see from your own dictionaries, because you just want to side with a nice guy who's never ever given you any trouble. :::And merely out of curiousity, just to educate my ignorant self, a couple of questions: How do you become an admin on this fine Wikia? And where do you have to report an admin who is having a problem with you?Zulu DFA 22:36, January 14, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm not "assorting" anything. I may be "asserting" something, but that's another matter entirely. I prefer my various and sundry items un-assorted, thank you very much. (Little humor to lighten the mood) Now - you maintain that Budget works better than Financing, but have provided not a shred of evidence to support this. Not one iota. In response to my detailed explanation of my Financing (the process of obtaining money to spend on various projects) works better than Budget (a detailed break-down of how funds you already have will be spent) works better for a section describing how Cerberus obtains its funds, you reply with a non-reply, stating that I apparently "refuse" to see what I'm saying. In fact, it is you who is refusing, refusing to answer. ::::Now, to answer your questions: Coincidentally enough, they both have the same answer, though one needs some elaboration. The answer to both is - the Bureaucrat. To become an admin, you request that the site Bureaucrat make you an admin. The Bureaucrat will review your contributions to the site, looking for frequency of edits, quality of edits, and adherence to site policy (any history of vandalism, edit warring, violation of site language policies, stuff like that). Additionally, the Bureaucrat will contact all the current admins, both active and inactive, and ask if they approve of the candidate's request to be made an admin. (Obviously, if an inactive admin fails to respond within a reasonable period of time, this will not be counted as a "No" vote) If all admins approve, and the individual's record is good, the Bureaucrat will promote the person to admin status. As far as reporting an admin you are having a problem with, you would contact the Bureaucrat and inform them of the situation, at which time the Bureaucrat will review the matter and take any action he deems appropriate. In case you are wondering, the site Bureaucrat can be contacted here. Hope this answers your questions! SpartHawg948 00:28, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::You have provided all the evidence I need. I repeat, if you care to read the definitions by your own links, they clearly play out my way. In the second "funding" link it is opposed to "financing", so now you're kinda right that "Financing" is better suited than "Funding" as title for that section, but guess what, it's not called "Financing" either! And, having noticed that you're avoiding to comment on my allegations that you just jumped on the opportunity to discipline a pesky noob without second thought, I maintain that "Budget", regardless of all this "alphabetizing" bullshit, is the best fitting term, because in just the three and a half lines of the section there are discussed Cerberus' "income", "spending" and the "estimates" of them both. All these terms appear in the first definition of "budget", making it a perfect fit. :::::Lol. So guess what my next question is?Zulu DFA 00:52, January 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Can you become an admin? SpartHawg948 00:54, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::No. Two attempts remaining.Zulu DFA 01:04, January 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::*Additionally, just noticed the other part of your last post. Please do not insert items into the middle of another users posts. When you do so, particularly when the part you add is unsigned (as yours was), it is a violation of site policy regarding editing the comments of other users. If you wish to comment on the post another person left, do so at the end of their comment, not in the middle of it. SpartHawg948 00:58, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Roger.Zulu DFA 01:38, January 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::I did say Financing, didn't I? Hmmm... it does seem to be a better alternative than either Budget or Funding. I'm all for switching Funding with Financing. And we wouldn't even have to move it to maintain the alphabetical order. Oh, and guessing isn't really my thing. If you have a question, ask it. If not, don't. SpartHawg948 01:07, January 15, 2011 (UTC) I still maintain that, as the section deals with Cerberus' various income sources and spending trends, the title "Budget" is the best match. The titles "Funding" and "Financing" deal only with one direction of the money flow - from the "sympathizers" to Cerberus' coffers. The self-generated income (by the "fronts") and the yearly spending of the earned billions are largely overlooked. And again I reiterate that should this edit have happened on another day or been performned by another guy, you probably wouldn't even have taken notice, but now you're just being stubborn on principle. And since you give up on my question, although I thought it was an easy one... Who do I take my complaints about the bureaucrat to?Zulu DFA 01:45, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :You maintain that, were this edit made at another time or by another person, I wouldn't object. To that I can only reply that you clearly don't know me. I don't hold grudges against people, certainly not over silly things like this, and when I see what appears to be a bad edit, I'll undo it, regardless of who made it. For instance, I've undone plenty of Commdor's edits, as I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you. :Now, as to who you should see to complain about me, that would be one of the fine staffers at Wikia. The one who usually deals with things on this wiki is JoePlay, though given the amicable working relationship we have, and the fact that he was the one who made me a Bureaucrat in the first place, I would understand completely if you sought out another staffer. I must say though that given the situation (the fact that we worked out a compromise, the fact that none of my actions were a violation of site or Wikia policy, the leniency I showed by not banning you for any of the several violations of site policy you committed, the fact that multiple other editors, admins and non-admins, felt your edits to be in error, and the general amicability and helpfulness I have displayed), I don't really see a complaint going anywhere, but you are of course free to do as you wish. I look forward to hearing from Wikia, should this go anywhere. They actually haven't gotten back to me about some issues with another wiki, so it'd be nice to bring that up too... SpartHawg948 01:47, January 15, 2011 (UTC) Oh, come on! You don't know me either. We haven't even nearly worked out a compromise. I'll probably give up on you once more, though. But still, you've just totally 100% wasted all the good bytes after "JoePlay". So cheers, for now anyway.Zulu DFA 01:59, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :First, I never claimed to know you. Nothing in my last post said or implied anything of the kind. Secondly, I may be mistaken, but I was of the belief that, in a situation in which both people gave ground, resulting in a solution that works, but isn't completely satisfying to either party (at least not in the context of their original positions), what you have is compromise. You wanted "Budget", I wanted "Funding". We got "Financing". Seems like the situation was resolved without either of us getting our way, which again, seems like a compromise. As for wasted bytes, I thought the bits informing you that JoePlay may be slightly biased and that you are free to do as you wish were just fine. Apparently though, my attempts to help you out are "wasted". Nice... SpartHawg948 02:02, January 15, 2011 (UTC) You were warned You have been repeatly warned about your edits and your behavior, and yet you persissted in breaking policy and edit warring. You were warned about your behavior many times over the last 48 hours, were repeatly asked to stop, and yet you decided to head none of them. I gave you one last change, and you chose to ignore it. As such, you have now been blocked for three months given your actions, repeated warnings about your behavior, repeated edit warring, and repeated violations of the Community Guidelines. Lancer1289 18:47, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :I am honored. :Now, two things: 1. Please take pains to move the "Redemption" section I've added below the "Ascension" section; : 2. Shove your idiotic "alpha order" you know where. It's an electronic media with a built-in search function, and your "alpha order" is totally redundant. Especially since it's still violated all over the same "Cerberus" page you keep alphaordering. What your Wikia really needs, guys, is references. To the sources of information. Just like about every other Wikia out there, even some really lousy ones. So that anyone could check out that Miranda's date of birth comes from the same source that lists Grunt as "22 years" old. :So cheers, permanently.Zulu DFA ::(edit conflict)No and no. Redemption takes place before the events of Ascension in the Mass Effect Universe. Second you were warned about switching those sections, many times, yet you still persisted in doing it. You have been edit warring over 3 times now, and you have been given more changes than others, yet you chose to ignore every warning and still edit counter to those warnings and counter to site policies. You don't realize how this wiki works, and in your time here, you chose to not to figure it out. Our references is the games, books, comics, BioWare dev information, and if necessary outside sources. However we only pull in outside sources when we need to because we have written this wiki form an in universe perspective, which means we don't operate like every other wiki. Every wiki is free to do what they want, make their own policies, and present themselves. Because we present ourselves as an in-universe perspective, our references is what I've listed above. There is no debate about Miranda's birthdate considering we don't have information to say that it is wrong. We do have information that Zaeed's, Mordin's, and Grunt's are wrong, but nothing about Miranda. So what about every other birthdate? We have all of those listed because we have no evidence to contradict what is presented. Lancer1289 19:28, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :::Great, my sources seem to be the same and it's hilarious how an admin here screws up with facts so badly as to say "Redemption" was happenng earlier later than "Ascension". "Ascension" begins a few weeks after the Battle of the Citadel (see "Ascension" Prologue), while "Redemption" begins at least 2.5 months after it (1 month after it Shepard is sent to chase Geth + a few week was chasing Geth to little avail + a month after the Normandy got destroyed -- "Redemption", page 2 or 3.) :::And I meant that the sources are usually linked and listed in a "References" section on the bottom of each page. In self-respecting Wikias, that is. And all the information you need to conclude miranda's age is wrong I've pu in the "talks" section in the "Timeline" page. Plus there is another clue that I won't bother telling you. ::: As for writhing this Wikia from the in-universe PoV, it's just as silly is your alphaordering rubbish. Coming up with stuff as you go, to spite your opponent, 'cause reasoning isn't actually your kind of thing. ::: One thing is quite right though. Here are you, Hawg, and a few favorites, that run this show as you like, without trying to present information in an unbiased way. Hence your site policy: If you like it, it stays, and if you don't like it, it goes, under any preposterous pretence that comes first to your narrow mind. Zulu DFA 20:23, January 15, 2011 (UTC), logging out ::::(edit conflit)Because we are written from an in-universe perspective, we don't see references, as that has been stated numerous times. We only have references where they are needed and in certain articles. Everything else we pull from the games, BioWare (which usually gets referenced), books, and comics. So your claim of us being "rubbish" and not "self-respecting" is unwarranted, rude, and insulting. Every wiki is different, and every wiki does things differently. We most certainly don't "come up with stuff as we go, to spite our opponents" as you claim. We can clearly point to things in articles that come directly from games, books, or comics, and if necessary an outside source. We don't put references in unless they are needed like we have on Shepard's page with the birth date because that comes from the Codex and the games. However, there was insufficient clarification on it, so we have a source to say for certain. Every wiki is different and we do things different than other wikis. That does not mean we aren't "self-respecting" or "rubbish", we just do things differently. ::::As to Miranda's age, you have yet to prove anything. Your information is subjective, cherry picked, and ignores other things to say the least and if you won't bother telling us something, then there is no need to consider it further. You aren't telling everything, and by your own admission, you are withholding information. Which you have done before. In addition, there is dialogue evidence to support the current date. ::::As to the events of Ascension, even in the timeline we have Ascension after Redemption, and that wasn't done lightly. ::::Your attitude, unwillingness to comprise, and continued insults against people and the wiki itself just add even more evidence to what you have already done. You are already on thin ice and if you continue to throw insults around, then you will have your last privilege of being able to edit your talk page taken away. Lancer1289 20:55, January 15, 2011 (UTC) :::::Ah, sweet delusions of persecution. Several editors (what is it up to now, 5?) have undone many of your edits for various and sundry reasons, so rather than accept the simplest and most obvious conclusion, that there maybe, just maybe, is something wrong with what you've been adding, you come up with a conspiracy. There must be some "good 'ol boys" club running the show here, the boss and his cronies trying to keep you down. Right... I can tell you, absolutely nothing of the sort occurred. Not that you'll believe me, as delusions of this sort are notoriously hard to dispel, even with concrete evidence. As for making things up on a whim to spite you, yes. That is clearly what we do. That's the reason we keep written policy and such to a bare minimum, so we can make things up as we go to spite newcomers. Wait... we don't keep written policy to a minimum. We've got a lot of it. Makes it pretty hard to just make things up on the fly, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that does mean that contributors are responsible for making sure that what they add gels with site policies. When it doesn't, or when their behavior is what isn't in keeping with policies, that's when we have issues, like we're having now. It's not because we're making things up to persecute you, it's because you are seemingly unable to abide by site policy or to discuss things in a calm and mature manner without resorting to edit warring and such. But hey, you keep thinking whatever it is you want to think... SpartHawg948 21:10, January 15, 2011 (UTC)